Claim of Palmer v. Mowers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Palmer v. Mowers

240 A.D.2d 788, 659 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6027

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 5, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 788 (Claim of Palmer v. Mowers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Palmer v. Mowers, 240 A.D.2d 788, 659 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 19, 1996, which restored the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record.

The Workers’ Compensation Board modified a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge by rescinding so much thereof as directed the State Insurance Fund to pay the bills submitted by chiropractor Howard T. Mowers for services rendered to claimant, with interest and penalties. The case was restored to the trial calendar to- determine whether Mowers’ bills complied with the relevant fee schedule and whether the penalty payments had been correctly calculated. Because the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board is interlocutory, involving neither substantive nor threshold legal issues, it is nonappealable (see, Matter of Hutcheson v Trinity Tool & Die, 201 AD2d 826).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 19, 1996, which restored the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record.

The Workers’ Compensation Board modified a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge by rescinding so much thereof as directed the State Insurance Fund to pay the bills submitted by chiropractor Howard T. Mowers for services rendered to claimant, with interest and penalties. The case was restored to the trial calendar to- determine whether Mowers’ bills complied with the relevant fee schedule and whether the penalty payments had been correctly calculated. Because the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board is interlocutory, involving neither substantive nor threshold legal issues, it is nonappealable (see, Matter of Hutcheson v Trinity Tool & Die, 201 AD2d 826).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 788, 659 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-palmer-v-mowers-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack